Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description does real work: it discloses that this call blocks until a terminal state, that results can be large, and that webhooks/interactive scrape actions are unavailable in safe mode. It omits cost/credit implications, timeout behavior, and permission requirements, which matter for a long-running crawl.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the scoping options and the warning. Little waste, though the middle sentence is a dense enumeration that borders on a parameter dump.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 16 parameters, nested scrapeOptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it does, that it blocks to terminal state, key scope controls, a size warning, and the shape of the return value (crawl ID, status, page data). The gaps are mostly detail on individual advanced parameters rather than anything that would cause a wrong invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 6% across 16 parameters, so the description carries real weight. It groups several controls into plain language (include/exclude paths, depth, page limit, subdomain/external links, sitemap handling, delay, scrape options), which helps orientation. However, many parameters (prompt, maxConcurrency, ignoreQueryParameters, deduplicateSimilarURLs, and most nested scrapeOptions fields) remain unexplained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb and resource: start a multi-page crawl at a URL, poll it to a terminal state, and return status plus collected data. 'Multi-page crawl' implicitly distinguishes it from firecrawl_scrape's single-page fetch, but no sibling tool is named explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It offers one usage cue ('use conservative limits when full-site coverage is unnecessary') and one environment constraint (no webhooks or interactive actions in safe mode). It never names alternatives like firecrawl_scrape, firecrawl_map, or firecrawl_check_crawl_status, so an agent must infer when a crawl beats a scrape or map.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.